RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive75
Null and void deletion of an article
Contrary to what was claimed, the article about BadEmpanada was not a puff piece, as it also included his disputes with streamers like Vaush and Kurzgesagt as well as this video, which details the accusations of antisemitism against him in regards to Israel. Not to mention, his Holodomor video was also cited, which was heavily scrutinized for supposed genocide denial. I also literally clarified that BadEmpanada having an article is beneficial for RW's missionality, due to his stance on Zionist propaganda, American exceptionalism, and Latin American history as well as his political disputes like his one with LonerBox on Israel-Palestine, which were all completely ignored in favor of personal biases. Plus, Vaush and Destiny have plenty of videos responding to BadEmpanada. If you want someone critically analyzing his claims, Aztlan Historian is a prime example.
Before you shut me down for having lost the debate, the points presented that stated how the article could have improved RW's missionality have been ignored and it met most of Plutocow's prerequisites for its existence, such as having a bunch of videos, citing other opposing videos, and Vaush's accounts that detail his supposed antisemitism. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- None of this matters, the article was fairly deleted by an AfD vote, which is the proper procedure and you don't get to try to overturn the outcome just because you don't like the reasoning of the delete voters. Unless you have an actual case, I would recommend swiftly archiving this. Plutocow (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then why did you ignore my points of the article meeting your prerequisites for its existence and not debunk my reasonings for why it could be beneficial for RW's missionality? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Random blogs and YouTube videos are not good sources. But regardless, none of this matters because this is not a moderation issue. Won't archive this because I'm involved, but someone else should. Plutocow (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You guys seem incredibly inconsistent with your sourcing policies, as there are several articles with YouTube videos and Twitter posts cited as sources, such as those of Shaun and PragerU. Laci Green is another example of a YouTuber whose controversies are not included in her article (i.e. her disputes with Sargon of Akkad), save for a series of death threats. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is fucking archived, stop editing. You might want to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? Plutocow (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You guys seem incredibly inconsistent with your sourcing policies, as there are several articles with YouTube videos and Twitter posts cited as sources, such as those of Shaun and PragerU. Laci Green is another example of a YouTuber whose controversies are not included in her article (i.e. her disputes with Sargon of Akkad), save for a series of death threats. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Random blogs and YouTube videos are not good sources. But regardless, none of this matters because this is not a moderation issue. Won't archive this because I'm involved, but someone else should. Plutocow (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then why did you ignore my points of the article meeting your prerequisites for its existence and not debunk my reasonings for why it could be beneficial for RW's missionality? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The Krusty Krab
Uploaded a likely AI-generated audio file smearing a living person (that is currently at AfD), and also has a history of smearing living YouTubers. It's time to ask if this is really a good-faith user. Plutocow (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It could just be a case of "garbage info in, garbage info out". I'm not entirely sure if two incidents is enough to question good faith. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- At a bare minimum they need to stop instantly believing whatever some internet random tells them. Both MatPat and MrBeast seem to have a history of being at least mildly pro LGBT so it's not like it was impossible to figure out these were likely fake. Chillpilled (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted the file. Unattributed hate speech does not belong on RW. Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support a 3 weeks block, but since this person is not here very often maybe this is not the right alternative. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- They're periodically active, so a vandal bin might be more effective. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- We should also remove their autopatrolled, I did it before but it was reinstated by Carthage for some reason. Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would make them unable to respond here, by the way. Chillpilled (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I thought they had learned their lesson, as they hadn't made any bad faith edits, at least not in my eyes, for some time before I gave them autopatrolled. It was tiresome to constantly patrol the edits of a harmless, seemingly good faith user. Carthage (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is (or was as now deleted) the mess that was Essay:Why SpongeBob is Racist And Why You Should Be Concerned created by them back in August 2023. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not happy that said AfD was opened/closed in the spece of 73 mins. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- We should also remove their autopatrolled, I did it before but it was reinstated by Carthage for some reason. Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- They're periodically active, so a vandal bin might be more effective. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support a 3 weeks block, but since this person is not here very often maybe this is not the right alternative. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted the file. Unattributed hate speech does not belong on RW. Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- At a bare minimum they need to stop instantly believing whatever some internet random tells them. Both MatPat and MrBeast seem to have a history of being at least mildly pro LGBT so it's not like it was impossible to figure out these were likely fake. Chillpilled (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Given the content, extreme hate speech with no attribution, and no copyright template, I stand by my decision to delete it on sight. Such rubbish uploads do not need a vote. Bongolian (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, am I right to assume here that said AfD was closed because Bongolian decided to nuke the thing off their own bat? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
block me permanently. im too gullible for this siteThe Krusty Krab (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- You are always welcome to LANCB. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also this says why matpat is transphobic. — Unsigned, by: The Krusty Krab / talk / contribs
- I think we can close this now. Krusty Krab LANCBed, was promoted by Plutocow, and vandal binned by me. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Er that tumblr link soes not contain transphobia as far as I can tell. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The general gist I got from the Reddit mill is that apparently MatPat made a joke using some "'attack helicopter'" meme thing (which is seen as transphobic by some); MatPat apologized later. Matpat also apparently sometimes misgenders. The general gist I seem to get as well is that this by and large is seen as sins of stupidity / ignorance instead of actual transphobia. That's all I know, I have zero involvement in the Youtube scene, and Reddit gossip searches like this are generally only reliable (slightly) for taking the temperature of the social media mob. BobJohnson (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also this says why matpat is transphobic. — Unsigned, by: The Krusty Krab / talk / contribs
Minor change in CS
One thing we should do while we're at it is change the CS from "Artificial intelligence-generated images are completely banned from RationalWiki." to "Artificial intelligence-generated files are completely banned from RationalWiki." This will also ban AI-generated audio and videos, among other things. Since it's technically a change to CS it requires a vote here, but it's common sense and I expect it to be uncontroversial. Plutocow (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good change. But on second thought, it may be better to refine it a bit more, similarly to how text is treated. After all, if we write more about generative AI we'd probably want to provide some examples (like images with too many fingers and other signs of fakery, if we want to describe how to spot fakes etc.).
- So another possible wording could be: "Artificial intelligence-generated media files (images, audio, video, etc.) are likewise banned from RationalWiki – except if used to describe AI itself, give examples of fakes, etc." Otherwise it may grow stifling for skeptical purposes later. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. The word "likewise" refers to the previous CS paragraph about text. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The Krusty Krab (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Voting on sanctions for The Krusty Krab
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: The Krusty Krab is banned for pi weeks, is sysoprevoked, and is topic banned from articles on Youtubers. |
---|
Pi weeks banYay
Nay
GoatPi months banYayNay
Goat
PermabanYay
Nay
Goat
SysoprevokeYay
Nay
Goat
Topic ban from YouTubersYay
Nay
Goat |
Voting on proposed changes to CS
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Both changes pass unanimously. |
---|
Reminder: changes to CS require a two-thirds supermajority to pass. Plutocow (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ban all AI-generated files (instead of only banning images)Yay
NayGoat
Allow AI files to be used as an example of AI fakeryYay
NayGoat
|
Clarifying when it's acceptable to edit someone else's userpage
While we're on the subject of CS changes, we might want to clarify something that's been bothering me for a while. The CS isn't clear on what's allowed on userpages, only saying that there are "common-sense-exceptions", which we have an article explaining why this is simply not adequate. For example, on many wikis it's completely acceptable to remove redlinks from other people's userpages so they don't show up in Special:WantedPages, so they may consider it "common sense" to remove them even though here we generally don't mind. We have had a few disputes over what is considered "common sense" to remove from userpages, so it's probably best to outline when it is allowed or disallowed to edit someone else's userspace. Here are my suggestions, although feel free to debate them:
- Allowed:
- Removing spam, vandalism, plagiarism, and violations of interaction bans
- Removing categories meant for mainspace pages
- Fixing a page's formatting so it doesn't show up in any of the maintenance categories
- Adding
{{banned}}
and{{deceased}}
, when necessary
- Disallowed unless you have permission:
- Fixing spelling and grammar, as well as any formatting fixes not otherwise allowed
- Removing redlinks
- Gray area:
- Offensive content. While obvious trolling/vandalism should be removed, if you're unsure take it with the mob.
Plutocow (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I would consider common sense. And exactly the guidelines I've followed in the past. Spud (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Vote on clarifying CS rules on userspace (please read)
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Removing spam, vandalism, iban violations, and mainspace categories, fixing pages that are in maintenance categories, and adding the banned and deceased templates are allowed, spelling and grammar fixes as well as removing redlinks are not allowed without permission. |
---|
Each of these votes has three options. "Explicitly allowed" means it will be listed in CS as an example of when it's acceptable to edit someone else's userspace, while "explicitly disallowed" means it will be mentioned as an example of when it isn't acceptable to edit someone else's userspace without permission. "Status quo" means it simply won't be mentioned either way. As this is a vote for a change to CS, a two-thirds supermajority is required for the "explicitly allowed" and "explicitly disallowed" options to pass; any vote that fails to reach a supermajority will default to "status quo". Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Removing spamExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatRemoving vandalismExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatRemoving plagiarismExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quo
GoatRemoving content that violates interaction bansExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quo
Goat
Removing categories meant for mainspace pagesExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoat
Fixing pages so they don't show up in maintenance categoriesExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatAdding the banned and deceased templates when necessaryExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatFixing spelling and grammar errorsExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowed
Status quo
Goat
Formatting fixes not otherwise specifiedExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowed
Status quo
GoatRemoving redlinksExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowed
Status quoGoatRemoving offensive contentExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowedStatus quo
Goat
|
Deceased and banned users at the RMF voter registration
I just checked RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Voter registration and I saw that there are some banned users, as well as at least two deceased users. I'd like to propose the removal of their names for obvious reasons: the first group could vote for users that aren't here in good faith, and the second can be used to rig the election if they get hacked or something. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Deceased:
- PsyGremlin
- Smerdis of Tlön
Banned:
- RobSmith
- Oxyaena
- Neiltyson1fan
- GR
- D
- Arisboch
- Kosterortiizbrock
- Hope I'm not missing anyone. Also, maybe I'm being too meticulous, but for historical reasons I think that we shouldn't simply remove them from the list. IMO either make a section of former voters or strikeout their names would be better since someone might wanna check which users are former voters. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- We might want to also do a bit of maintenance by making sure all the usernames are up to date as well. Plutocow (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the names should be stricken out but with an explanation in parentheses.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the names should be stricken out but with an explanation in parentheses.
- We might want to also do a bit of maintenance by making sure all the usernames are up to date as well. Plutocow (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hope I'm not missing anyone. Also, maybe I'm being too meticulous, but for historical reasons I think that we shouldn't simply remove them from the list. IMO either make a section of former voters or strikeout their names would be better since someone might wanna check which users are former voters. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, it's good enough for me. Should we just implement it? I don't think we need a vote. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please. Spud (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need unanimous approval for this? Not sure if y'all are waiting on my input. CorruptUser 05:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure, but either way, I support the strike-outs and explanations. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need unanimous approval for this? Not sure if y'all are waiting on my input. CorruptUser 05:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Ow, my eyes
(Not quite sure if this is the right place, but anyways…) You know how I've mentioned that if I still had sysop tools, I wouldn't be above deleting revisions that are literal eyesores and interfere with performing activities such as reviewing page history? The recent edits by Latinx7PalestinianVideos are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about — huge images imposed over articles and the site headers via <div> abuse that literally cover up the "previous edit" and "next edit" buttons (along with almost everything else, including the actual contents of the page) so that scrolling through the page history comes to a dead stop. Someone please get rid of that garbage. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- My viewing of the offending accounts records etc tell me that Bongolian blocked within 10 mins and I assume also reversed the vandalism. Is this a 'passive tone' request for a resumption of sysop tools? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily (that'd be nice, but I don't expect such a request to be granted after being in ATIM two months ago). I'm saying that such obstructive, eye-searing edits shouldn't even be kept in the fossil record, as they literally get in the way while clicking through past edits one-by-one, like a pop-up ad that completely covers a webpage you're trying to read. So, if anything, this is a request to revise our revision deletion policy. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Luigifan18 I went to the fossil record and clicked on the vandalized version of the page from yesterday. I was then able to click away again immediately. What the fuck are you complaining about? Spud (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a person has to actively go into the fossil record to see it, it could be said it's partly self-inflicted. And how many people trawl the edit histories anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Spud Were you able to use a button on the page, or did you have to use the back button? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- On a PC / Chrome browser, you cannot see the previous edit / next edit button... but you can click the "fossil record" tab. So a vandal doing div style abuse is no big deal. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Luigifan18 I used the back button on my browser. It was super easy. Barely even an inconvenience. The vandalism was also rolled back easily enough. I also have to agree with KarmaPolice. Hardly any of our readers will want to go looking at older versions of a page and even fewer of those would want to click anything on an older version of a page. The idea of deleting that silly vandal's edits so that they're no longer in the fossil record is just giving them pointless attention that they don't warrant. Spud (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- On a PC / Chrome browser, you cannot see the previous edit / next edit button... but you can click the "fossil record" tab. So a vandal doing div style abuse is no big deal. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Spud Were you able to use a button on the page, or did you have to use the back button? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a person has to actively go into the fossil record to see it, it could be said it's partly self-inflicted. And how many people trawl the edit histories anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Luigifan18 I went to the fossil record and clicked on the vandalized version of the page from yesterday. I was then able to click away again immediately. What the fuck are you complaining about? Spud (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily (that'd be nice, but I don't expect such a request to be granted after being in ATIM two months ago). I'm saying that such obstructive, eye-searing edits shouldn't even be kept in the fossil record, as they literally get in the way while clicking through past edits one-by-one, like a pop-up ad that completely covers a webpage you're trying to read. So, if anything, this is a request to revise our revision deletion policy. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Rational Dude and unformatted citations
So @Rational Dude has been asked multiple times, including by myself, to properly format his citations. And yet he's still doing it (see here for the latest example). I myself have had to do his work for him several times (for examples see here and here, I've also had to replace paywalled links with archived versions and replace a goodreads link with a proper citation). It's honestly tiresome and dragging down the quality of our articles. What should be done about this? Carthage (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’m about ready to start rolling back and blocking over this myself.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 11:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Q1; is there actually a RW page to provide a ref/style guide for this kind of thing?
- Q2; is it mandated anywhere that a person adding new content must also make it all pretty too?
- Q3; is it inherently wrong to think that some folks contribution to RW might be by making citations pretty, proofreading etc?
- I will confess this; I have been guilty of leaving a welter of bare URLs on pages too. But you know what? I put a butt-load of effort into researching the topic, in producing content for the page, ensuring it's actually readable as a single article, locating as many decent refs I can and so on. I have tried in the past to pretty-fy refs etc, but 75% I end up doing it wrong. I hate to say it, but I suspect my talents with the codes etc are minimal and my skillsets are better served in producing actual content. After all, when building a house, the bricklayer needs the plasterer who needs the painter. You cannot complain about 'ugly refs' if the article in question doesn't exist, can you?
- I will again point out that there appears to be no RW policy regarding using paywalled links. Now, I personally think it's total BS [a paywalled link is about as 'accessable' a source as a text out of print for 25 years and the nearest copy is in a closed building 100 miles away] but I have been told in the past 'theoretical' access is good enough [something which I think betrays the academic ancestory of RW]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- To answer your first question, there is a section in the Manual of Style that addresses reference formatting. Given that this is RationalWiki, there is no mandate to follow these guidelines. The help article on references says that it is "bad practice to give a URL with no other information as a reference." And it is just plain lazy to stick a direct link to a paywalled site into an article without checking to see if the link has been captured by archive.is or archive.org. That's just my opinion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've recently extended my grammar-checking activities into making references look a bit better, if that helps. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fixing this right now, I wasn't purposely trying to neglect my responsibility, I've just been rushing. Rational Dude (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I question the assumption/theory that it is 'your responsibility'. RW is not your employer, nor is it some kind of educational institution which demands submissions of work to pass a grade or something. And as Comsic points out, there is no mandate in RW for you to do it either. I suspect being blocked over this would end up being laughed out of the coop too [and totally unproductive to boot; I mean driving off productive editors because they don't conform exactly to your 'formatted citations' desires? Do you not see an issue with this?]
- Let's cut to the crux of the issue; Carthage and Duce feel that bare urls 'reduce quality' of mainspace articles. I can understand that it can be annoying to that kind of user as there is no automatic manner [to my knowledge] to sniff these out without manually looking at them page by page. Therefore, I suggest we get a new Category for RW's 'Articles requiring attention' - 'Articles requiring polishing' [or similar]. I am sure there are folks on RW who'd like to/are willing to do said polishing as 'their bit'.
- As for the paywalled refs; I do think we at RW really do need to have a discussion regarding what counts as a quotable source and what isn't. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you to KP for mentioning this, they're right that this isn't really something that's punishable with a block. I do think Duce and Carthage have a point that I have to clean up and format my references, However I don't think they should punish me with a block, since that's reserved for serious offenses. I'd much rather get another opportunity to fix any linked references that need formatting. Rational Dude (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The idea of blocking someone for badly formatted wiki markup is frankly hilarious. Nevertheless we should expect that people get things right after multiple requests.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you to KP for mentioning this, they're right that this isn't really something that's punishable with a block. I do think Duce and Carthage have a point that I have to clean up and format my references, However I don't think they should punish me with a block, since that's reserved for serious offenses. I'd much rather get another opportunity to fix any linked references that need formatting. Rational Dude (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fixing this right now, I wasn't purposely trying to neglect my responsibility, I've just been rushing. Rational Dude (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've recently extended my grammar-checking activities into making references look a bit better, if that helps. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- To answer your first question, there is a section in the Manual of Style that addresses reference formatting. Given that this is RationalWiki, there is no mandate to follow these guidelines. The help article on references says that it is "bad practice to give a URL with no other information as a reference." And it is just plain lazy to stick a direct link to a paywalled site into an article without checking to see if the link has been captured by archive.is or archive.org. That's just my opinion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The only excuse for adding bare-ass-naked-URL citations is laziness. So, if you're doing it repeatedly, just cop to being lazy. That said, it's much worse to add bare-ass-naked-URL citations to silver or gold articles. These articles have mostly already had their citations cleaned up, so if you're doing it you're giving other people the work that you should be doing. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I brought this forward was because I was tired of doing RD's formatting for him. Carthage (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I find the practice, not restricted to RD, annoying too. It's still better than no citation. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage Which is why I fixed it. You don't have to do it for me, I can do it myself. Plus, there's bare urls on pages that I never added them too, like [redacted]'s page. Rational Dude (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I find the practice, not restricted to RD, annoying too. It's still better than no citation. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
So, any traction on my idea of having a 'Articles requiring polishing' category? Not just cleaning up URLs, but also better/more pics, better layout etc? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)